Ravi Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 2779 Del

$-3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          DECIDED ON : 4th JULY, 2013

+                             CRL.A. 609/2013

       RAVI KUMAR                                   ..... Appellant
                              Through :   Ms.Arundhati Kaju, Advocate.


                              versus
       STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)     ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. The appellant- Ravi Kumar has filed appeal to challenge

correctness of the order dated 19.03.2013 of learned Additional Sessions

Judge by which his prayer to order sentence in FIR Nos. 280/2010 and

05/2010, Police Station Kotwali to run concurrently was disallowed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have

examined the record. It reveals that the appellant- Ravi Kumar was

convicted in FIR No. 280/2010 for committing offence under Section 326

IPC PS Kotwali and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and six

months with fine ` 2,000/-. He completed the substantive sentence on

26.01.2013. Again the appellant was convicted in FIR No. 05/2010 under

Section 326 IPC PS Kotwali and sentenced to undergo RI for three years

by an order dated 25.01.2012. Appellant's counsel urged to modify the

sentence order and to allow both the substantive sentences to run

concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C. as the appellant is a poor person

and has small family to take care of them.

3. Section 427 fixes the time from which a sentence passed on

an offender who is already undergoing another sentence should run. The

general rule is that a sentence commences to run from the time of its being

passed. The power conferred on the Court under Section 427 to order

concurrent sentence is discretionary. Where the Court does not specify

whether the sentences awarded shall run concurrently or consecutively,

presumption is that the Court intended that the sentences shall run one

after the other. I find no substance/ merit in the appellant's plea to order

both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. In FIR No. 280/2010,

the appellant with his associates caused 'dangerous' injuries with sharp

weapon i.e. knife on the victim. In the FIR No. 05/2010, the appellant

inflicted 'grievous' injuries with knife on the abdomen of the victim.

Nominal roll reveals that the appellant is also involved in case FIR No.

1/2011 under Section 25 Arms Act PS Kotwali. The two offences are not

akin or intimately connected. These were committed on different dates in

distinct and different circumstances/ occurrences. There were two separate

trials. Taking into consideration the injuries inflicted by the appellant to

distinct victims on different dates without any motive/ provocation, he

deserves no leniency to order concurrent sentences in both the FIRs. The

Trial Court took lenient view and awarded RI for three years only.

4. The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed in limini. Copy of

the order be sent to Trial Court.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JULY 04, 2013 tr